Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Against obligation : the multiple sources of authority in a liberal democracy / Abner S. Greene.

By: Greene, Abner, 1960-.
Material type: TextTextSeries: JSTOR eBooks.Publisher: Cambridge, Mass. ; London : Harvard University Press, 2012Description: 1 online resource (viii, 333 pages).Content type: text Media type: computer Carrier type: online resourceISBN: 9780674069398; 0674069390; 9780674065178; 0674065174.Other title: Multiple sources of authority in a liberal democracy.Subject(s): Obedience (Law) | Effectiveness and validity of law | Law -- Moral and ethical aspects | Constitutional law -- United StatesAdditional physical formats: Print version:: Against obligation.DDC classification: 340/.112 Online resources: Click here to view this ebook.
Contents:
Against political obligation -- Accommodating our plural obligations -- Against interpretive obligation to the past -- Against interpretive obligation to the Supreme Court.
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
Item type Current location Call number URL Status Date due Barcode
Electronic Book UT Tyler Online
Online
K240 .G74 2012 (Browse shelf) https://ezproxy.uttyler.edu/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt2jbwg7 Available ocn794004242

Includes bibliographical references (pages 303-321) and index.

Against political obligation -- Accommodating our plural obligations -- Against interpretive obligation to the past -- Against interpretive obligation to the Supreme Court.

Print version record.

Reviews provided by Syndetics

CHOICE Review

Perhaps enexpectedly for a law professor, Greene (law, Fordham Univ.) aims to refute the notion that citizens have a general moral obligation to obey the law--in contrast, say, to Abraham Lincoln's emphasis on reverence for law as the foundation of political freedom. Greene is not an anarchist, however. Instead, the practical bearing of his argument is merely that government should offer a greater range of "exemptions" from the law for particular religious and moral communities, or individual practitioners of conscientious objection, when no "compelling state interest" is involved. Additionally, Greene denies that in interpreting the Constitution, government officials have any "duty to follow either prior or higher sources of constitutional meaning." In other words, he challenges both the interpretative principle of original intent and the rule of stare decisis. Here again, he disclaims the notion that his doctrine would generate an unacceptable instability in the law. Instead, he espouses "a theory of generational participation" in the interpretation of both Constitution and laws as a way of freeing each generation from the dead hand of the past, and would encourage lower courts to challenge previous Supreme Court interpretations with which they disagree. Summing Up: Recommended. Upper-division undergraduate, graduate, and research collections. D. Schaefer College of the Holy Cross

There are no comments for this item.

Log in to your account to post a comment.